作者：霍海红
作者介绍：浙江大学光华法学院教授，国家“2011计划”司法文明协同创新中心研究员
出版日期：2020年2月9日
内容提要 2007年 《民事诉讼法》修正时对申请执行期限作了重大改革：名称由 “申 请执行期限”修改为 “申请执行时效”，期间从 1年或6个月统一加长为2年且可以中止和 中断。虽然从时效理论和实践效果观察，该项改革属重大进步，但仍有巨大提升空间。执行 时效期间应在坚持时效身份的前提下独特化：为保障判决的确定性和安定性，平衡申请执行 人与被执行人利益，缓解执行难困境，提升时效规则体系化，执行时效期间应显著长于普通 诉讼时效期间。建议坚持 “诉讼时效统一化”思路，在民法典总则编对 “判决确认之请求权” 规定 10年的特别诉讼时效期间。即使暂时维持执行时效与诉讼时效的 “二元并立”立法 体例，《民事诉讼法》也应将执行时效期间加长为 10年。
关键词 执行时效 诉讼时效 终本程序 执行难
Abstract: In 2007, when the Civil Procedure Law was amended, the application for the implementation period was greatly reformed. The name is changed from "the application for enforcement time limit" to "the application for enforcement limitation". The period is extended from one year or six months to two years, and can be suspended or interrupted. Although the reform is a significant progress from the perspective of the theory and practice of time limitation, there is still great room for improvement. The duration of enforcement limitation should be unique on the premise of insisting on the identity of time limitation. In order to guarantee the certainty and stability of the judgment, balance the interests of the applicant and the respondent, alleviate the difficulty of the implementation, and promote the systematization of time limitation, the duration of enforcement limitation should be significantly longer than that of ordinary limitation of action. It is suggested that we adhere to the idea of "unification of limitation of action", and that a special limitation period of ten years for "the right of claim for confirmation of the judgment" should be stipulated in the General Provisions of Civil Code. Even if the legislative structure of "dual juxtaposition" between the enforcement limitation and the limitation of action is temporarily maintained, the duration of the enforcement limitation should be extended to ten years in the Civil Procedure Law.